JOHN C. FLETCHER, CHAIRMAN & NEUTRAL MEMBER
T. M. STONE, CARRIER MEMBER
DON M HAHS, ORGANIZATION MEMBER
The Chairman and Neutral Member, after review of the entire record, has determined that the issue before this Board is:
Public Law Board No. 6198. upon the whole record and all of the evidence, finds and holds that the Emplovee(s) and the Carrier are employee and carrier within the meaning of the Railway Labor .Act, as amended; and, that the Board has jurisdiction over the dispute(s) herein.
The parties have brought before this Board a dispute involving Claimant Engineer J. W. Rogers' alleged violation of General Operating Rules 16.1,16.2, and 16.2a on January 30, 1999 when the train he was operating, ZMEEG-?9, entered the Kosse Block on the Ennis Subdivision without proper authority from the dispatcher. According to the record, which contains no evidence of substantive disagreement between the parties regarding the events at bar, Claimant operated his train into the Kosse Block (governed by DTC
According to the record before this Board, the hearing was actually conducted on February 18, 1999, during which Conductor Harrison appeared as a witness, having exercised his right under Carrier's current discipline Policies and Procedures to waive investigation. In pertinent part, Harrison testified on cross-examination at page 29 of the transcript that he, as Conductor of Train ZMEEG-29 on the date in question, had been primarily responsible for keeping the DTC log, and thought, albeit in error, that authority had been granted by the dispatcher to enter the Kosse Block. As is required by Rule 16.2a above, he noted as such on the applicable DTC sheet for their assignment, a copy of which was entered into the record as Exhibit C to the transcript of investigation. Conductor Harrison further acknowledged in that same testimony, that when Claimant questioned him specifically concerning authority to enter the Kosse Block, he had given him clear verbal indication to proceed. (The Board notes that a transcript of the dispatcher's communications with Train ZNIEEG-29 on January 30, 1999 was entered into the record of the February l8. 1999 hearing. and indicates unequivocally, as dots the testimony of both Conductor Harrison and Claimant, that no such permission had, in fact, been granted.) .
Subsequent to the hearing. Claimant was assessed a Level 4 30-day actual suspension, and in accordance with FRA 49 CFR Part 240.307, his Locomotive Engineer Certification was revoked pending review. The revocation of Claimant's Engineer certification was duly appealed by the Organization, the content of which was forwarded by the FRA to Carrier's Manager of Engineer Certification and Licensing, Brigitte Hunsaker for consideration. Ms. Hunsaker responded to the query as follows:
As the parties were unable to resolve the Organization's resulting appeal of Claimant's 30-day suspension, it is now before this Board for full and final disposition.
The Carrier argues that Claimant was negligent in the performance of this duties, as he indisputably operated his train into a DTC block on January 30, 1999 without securing proper verbal authority from the dispatcher, as is required by Rule 16.1 cited above. Carrier states the obvious %vhen it asserts its position that occupying the Main Line without authority is the most egregious of rule violations, as it jeopardizes the safety of the train crews, employees, and the general public. It further rests upon the wellestablished and supported industry principle that engineers and conductors jointly share responsibility for safe train operations.
In rebuttal, the Organization points out that Claimant, operating the controls of a moving train at the time of this incident, was expressly barred from copying block authorities in accordance with the provisions of General Operating Rule 16.2, and as such, was dependent upon his Conductor to perform in that capacity in behalf of the entire train crew. The Organization also reminds this Board that Claimant did not take for granted that he, in fact, had authority to operate into the Kosse Block, but was givers verbal and written direction by Conductor Harrison to do so.
Upon the whole of the record, this Board is persuaded by the Organization's arguments in this matter. During the handling of Claimant's appeal on the property, Chairman Thompson legitimately contemplated the potential result of a finding in favor of the Carrier when he stated in his letter to Carrier on April 16, 1999 (BLE Exhibit 3) as follows:
This Board agrees; Rule 16.2 is succinct. Claimant could not, himself, have copied authority from the dispatcher to enter the Kosse Block (or all others for that matter) unless he stopped his train. So, as a practical consequence, he justifiably relied upon his Conductor to secure and release it in behalf of the crew as a whole while ZMEEG-29 was on the move. (The transcript of dispatcher communications trade part of the hearing record indeed contains evidence that other block authorities had been secured and released by the conductor prior to the incident at issue. The Board understands the fact that while Train ZMEEG-29 is identified inter alip in that transcript using Claimant's name, there is no indication that the dispatcher was ever in communication with hire personally, as DTC practices mandate identification of a specific train by lead engine number, direction, and engineer's name.)
In so finding for the Claimant in this case, we must, however, make one thing perfectly clear. We in no way mitigate substantial prior arbitral authority which has consistently sustained the right of railroad Carriers to hold conductors and engineers jointly responsible for the safe operation of their trains. We are merely of the opinion that, in this case. Claimant satisfied that obligation and acted in good faith when he addressed Conductor Harrison «vith specific regard to their authority to enter the Kosse Block, and was given verbal and written evidence by him that permission to do so had been granted by the. dispatcher.
Accordingly. Carrier is directed to remove the Level 4 30-day actual suspension and all references to this incident from Claimant's service record, and compensate him for any and all time lost as a result of that discipline.
is answered in the neptive, "No." The claim is sustained as set forth in the findings.
Engineer J. V. Rogers 30-day Suspension
